Part IV: Using the Results

Understanding the Results

Step 7: Summarize Your Findings, and Create Working Hypotheses and Development Strategies

Providing a client with a copy of their EQ-i 2.0 report does not constitute appropriate feedback, nor does simply listing the client’s high and low scores from the profile graph. Although the shape of your EQ-i 2.0 feedback can take any form, it is your responsibility not only to share test results but also to share your interpretations of these results in language that is easy for your client to understand (APA, 1999).

Your feedback should include a discussion about your client’s overall degree of emotional intelligence and any notable strong and weak areas. Within this discussion, present working hypotheses about what the results might mean for your client and immediate situation. A working hypothesis is a non-definitive and non-diagnostic statement about a possible interpretation of your findings and can be used to initiate discussion about how a particular result applies to your client’s life. The term “working” is used because as the discussion progresses you will revise your hypotheses as your client reveals more information or examples of how their result manifests itself in the workplace, at home or in relationships, for example.

Example of a Working Hypothesis

“You might run into challenges with an imbalance between your Empathy and Assertiveness results. How do you see these subscales working for you? Do they ever work against you?”

Example of a Definitive Hypothesis

“Your Empathy score is significantly lower than your Assertiveness score which indicates that you are argumentative or insistent at work. Do you agree?”

Your objective is to confirm throughout the debrief process which of your working hypotheses are relevant and valid to your client. Be prepared to gather additional information on your hypotheses as you go, and reject, accept or throw out hypotheses as your client provides more details.

Based on the nature and degree of the lowest and highest subscale scores or any other subscale of interest to your client, you should be prepared to discuss development strategies and possible next steps to attain improvement in EI skills. Several development strategies are outlined in the client’s report, and your own professional recommendations can be used for emotional skills improvement. In order to obtain the most value from the EQ-i 2.0, the debrief process should end with next steps for the client, otherwise any findings and revelations will likely remain as personal insight but not progress into permanent personal growth.

Working hypotheses for an EQ 360 2.0 interpretation should examine areas of both agreement and disconnect among your client’s various rater groups. Presented below are some working hypotheses to get you started in interpreting your client’s EQ 360 2.0 results:  Self scores are significantly lower than rater group scores: Some individuals underestimate their ability to understand and express themselves. This tendency could be based on low self-awareness, low self-esteem, a lack of self-confidence, a different definition of a particular subscale, or higher expectations of what successful demonstration of that particular subscale would like Rater scores are significantly lower than self scores: Some individuals may overestimate their abilities, skills and performance when it comes to drawing on EI skills at work. This could be due to a misunderstanding of what success looks like, low self-awareness, egocentric needs, narcissism or an inability to view oneself as one really is (Reality Testing). The ratings of one rater group differ substantially from the others. Instances where scores from one rater group diverge in a notable way from the others may indicate that the participant behaves, and possibly performs, in a significantly different manner when interacting with individuals in that rater group. For example, if manager ratings are significantly lower for Assertivenes, when self and all other rater groups have provided a higher score, this may indicate that your client is less assertive when interacting with her manager, but is able to work assertively with colleagues and direct reports. In such cases it is important to explore the extent to which, and why, her performance is more or less effective within that particular work relationship. Also, consider the hypothesis that your client is consistent in their behavior, but that the rater group is either more or less familiar with your client’s performance compared to the other rater groups.